Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

swstephe · 4th October 2005, 10:32 PM

hope this isn't covered in another thread. i put the actual headline in the title rather than "can you believe this", or something like that.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...811332,00.html

is this article for real? it starts out as if it is for all catholics worldwide, but only mentions catholics of great britain in the details. i know there have been some changes, but i'm not catholic. the implications seem big to me ... the catholic church supporting evolution ... will creation scientists have to declare catholic church infidels?

TragicMonkey · 4th October 2005, 11:56 PM

Catholics aren't generally creationists, not in the literal "seven days", "young earth" style. The Church has stated in the past that Darwin's theory of evolution is not incompatible with its teachings. Possibly because the Catholic Church, while contrary and irritating at times, is fully capable of understand what is and isn't covered by a scientific theory and knows that evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life or the creation of the planet.

The Church learned from its mistakes with Galileo.

Jorghnassen · 5th October 2005, 05:41 AM

Actually, doesn't this go back to something like the second century? I can't remember which theologian stated it first (someone like ceo_esq probably knows), but according to the Catholic Church, there are lots of parts of the Bible you can't take at face value, such as the 7 days creation part of the Genesis...

Darat · 5th October 2005, 06:06 AM

As with most things when dealing with such an ancient and prevalent organisation the answers are not simple or straight forward. With that in mind I'll go out on a limb and try to summarise it.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that "it" (the church itself) is the interpreter of the truth. The way to salvation is through the Church.

It's at the heart of what the reformation was all about. One of the reasons there was resistance for the King James translation and publication was that it translated the Bible into a “common” language. The established view at that time was that the "people" didn't need to read the bible since the it was the church's responsibility to ensure people lived and behaved in such a way to ensure salvation.

There is nothing new or unusual about the RCC releasing teaching materials and telling its followers what they should believe.

I don’t think at anytime throughout its very long history has the Bible been viewed by the Catholic Church as the one and only literal truth. (I stand to be corrected if it has held such a view.)

geni · 5th October 2005, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by swstephe

hope this isn't covered in another thread. i put the actual headline in the title rather than "can you believe this", or something like that.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...811332,00.html

is this article for real? it starts out as if it is for all catholics worldwide, but only mentions catholics of great britain in the details.

I can't see any new theology

Quote:

i know there have been some changes, but i'm not catholic. the implications seem big to me ... the catholic church supporting evolution

Hardly new. The catholic church never really opposed evolution. It tended to learn it's lession after the whole helocentric thing.

Quote:

... will creation scientists have to declare catholic church infidels?

They already do. Considering the relgious background most of them come from thier church probably did a couple of centries ago.

maddog · 5th October 2005, 06:20 AM

Well, for the most part, this isn't really news. As I was taught -- in Catholic school, mind you -- there is Truth (Capital T) and there is truth (small t). Big T Truth is statements of faith, which (even so) are not necessarily historically true events. Small t truth is things like historal accuracy, scientific accuracy, literal facts.

The Catholic church position (as I learned in school) was that the Bible contains Big T Truths -- faith statements about the covenant between God and Israel, Jesus as Messiah, the resurrection, etc. The Bible may contain some small t truths, but that is not the primary purpose or function of it.

It was, in fact, in Catholic school that I first learned of things such as the two conflicting creation stories in Genesis, the two HUGELY conflicting "infancy narratives" (stories of the birth of Jesus) in Matthew and Luke, and complete lack of birth stories in the other two gospels (Mark and John).

As a faith story, told to a specific audience, with knowledge of the background of that audience, much of the Bible is fascinating, and great literature -- particularly those infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke (hey, how did you figure Christmas got to be such a big deal?) But for anyone to try to use it -- as earlier Catholics did, and fundies still do -- as a book of science is foolish. Even to use it as a book of history is weak at best.

TragicMonkey · 5th October 2005, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

I don’t think at anytime throughout its very long history has the Bible been viewed by the Catholic Church as the one and only literal truth. (I stand to be corrected if it has held such a view.)

I was raised Catholic, and that's the exact impression I got. There were some good bits in the Bible, but nobody needs to go overboard and search Leviticus or one of the weirder books for something meaningful.

It was something of a surprise when I wound up in a very Baptist college, and class discussions would stop when I mentioned some very Christian belief of Aquinas or St Augustine and was told "that's not in the Bible"...therefore it was automatically invalid and unworthy of discussion. It wasn't "really" Christianity if were outside the Bible. Which is probably news to Aquinas, Augustine, and all those synods and councils that decided what the Trinity was and who was and wasn't divine.

Which of course led me to ask how many people who believed in angels believed they look like people with wings. All of them did, and none of them believed me when I said that that image of angels was merely an artistic convention, and not a description from the Bible. It frustrates me that people would attach so much importance to a single book, yet not trouble to read the whole damn thing!

Jorghnassen · 6th October 2005, 08:15 AM

Yep, dates back to the second century, and the guy's name was Origen.

Anti_Hypeman · 6th October 2005, 11:02 AM

Catholic church no longer swears by the truth of the catholic church.

Remember purgatory? What happened to all the priests that lived and died before the no sex rule? Did they go to hell or is the current doctrine wrong?

Melendwyr · 6th October 2005, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

All of them did, and none of them believed me when I said that that image of angels was merely an artistic convention, and not a description from the Bible. It frustrates me that people would attach so much importance to a single book, yet not trouble to read the whole damn thing!

The purpose of their belief is not to evaluate their own beliefs, but to dismiss the beliefs of others that they dislike. It's the basic double standard -- other people's beliefs are wrong because they're not in the Bible, but their own beliefs must be in the Bible because they're true.

drkitten · 6th October 2005, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Anti_Hypeman

What happened to all the priests that lived and died before the no sex rule? Did they go to hell or is the current doctrine wrong?

Neither. The Catholic Church distinguishes between "venial sin" and "mortal sin" -- a venial sin does not involve a complete loss of God's grace nor does it bar one from Heaven. (As opposed, of course, to a moral sin. A mortal sin results in complete loss of grace, and dying in a state of moral sin will result in your eternal separation from God in Hell.)

There are traditionally three elements necessary for a mortal sin : Knowledge, Free Will, Grave Matter. (it's not mortal if you don't know it's a sin, it's not mortal if the sin is involuntary, and it needs to be about something important). Since the priests who lived, married, and died before the no sex rule were not taught about this particular rule, they would get a freebie pass on the "knowledge" part.

And isn't Purgatory still part of Catholic doctrine? (I believe it was explicitly affirmed at Vatican II in Lumen gentium that souls that are not completely free of sin must still be "purged." ) I think the only thing that really changed was the idea that Purgatory had to be a separate place.

ceo_esq · 6th October 2005, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by Anti_Hypeman

Remember purgatory? What happened to all the priests that lived and died before the no sex rule? Did they go to hell or is the current doctrine wrong?

The priestly celibacy requirement has never been a matter of Catholic doctrine. It's purely an administrative regulation.

Abdul Alhazred · 6th October 2005, 09:26 PM

The Galileo thing was more about the man's politics than any RC doctrine of geocentrism.

Galileo advocated the unification of Italy as a country. This opposed the Papal States of central Italy.

The church never bothered about Copernicus, a politically correct priest in Poland. Yeah he was dead before published, but they didn't suppress his works when they had plenty of power to suppress stuff.

Moral of the story: Don't be an outspoken Ghibelline in Italy. The Church can have you tortured.

Modern moral of the story: Don't let anyone have that kind of authority.

ceo_esq · 6th October 2005, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred

Moral of the story: Don't be an outspoken Ghibelline in Italy. The Church can have you tortured.

For the sake of accuracy, however, Galileo's story did not actually contain any episodes of torture.

I find your avatar strongly reminiscent of Jean-Paul Belmondo, by the way.

Abdul Alhazred · 7th October 2005, 06:27 PM

No they didn't torture him, but they threatened, which shut him up.

For the source of my avatar, see this:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0094/0094_01.asp

TragicMonkey · 7th October 2005, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred

For the source of my avatar, see this:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0094/0094_01.asp

Do you know, for all this time, I've been thinking your avatar was Ming the Merciless in a funny mood.

eta: Holy crap! Just read it. Chick seems to have an S&M electro fetish.

And your avatar guy? He looks kinda...hot...in his freaky evil witch armor.

4th October 2005, 10:32 PM	#1
swstephe Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: borneo island Posts: 176	Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible hope this isn't covered in another thread. i put the actual headline in the title rather than "can you believe this", or something like that. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...811332,00.html is this article for real? it starts out as if it is for all catholics worldwide, but only mentions catholics of great britain in the details. i know there have been some changes, but i'm not catholic. the implications seem big to me ... the catholic church supporting evolution ... will creation scientists have to declare catholic church infidels?
	__________________ "I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would be an affront to your intelligence." -- George Bernard Shaw

4th October 2005, 11:56 PM	#2
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,112	Catholics aren't generally creationists, not in the literal "seven days", "young earth" style. The Church has stated in the past that Darwin's theory of evolution is not incompatible with its teachings. Possibly because the Catholic Church, while contrary and irritating at times, is fully capable of understand what is and isn't covered by a scientific theory and knows that evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life or the creation of the planet. The Church learned from its mistakes with Galileo.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

5th October 2005, 06:06 AM	#4
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,798	As with most things when dealing with such an ancient and prevalent organisation the answers are not simple or straight forward. With that in mind I'll go out on a limb and try to summarise it. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that "it" (the church itself) is the interpreter of the truth. The way to salvation is through the Church. It's at the heart of what the reformation was all about. One of the reasons there was resistance for the King James translation and publication was that it translated the Bible into a “common” language. The established view at that time was that the "people" didn't need to read the bible since the it was the church's responsibility to ensure people lived and behaved in such a way to ensure salvation. There is nothing new or unusual about the RCC releasing teaching materials and telling its followers what they should believe. I don’t think at anytime throughout its very long history has the Bible been viewed by the Catholic Church as the one and only literal truth. (I stand to be corrected if it has held such a view.)
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

5th October 2005, 06:20 AM	#6
maddog Intimidating Terrapin Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The People's Republic of Maryland Posts: 11,820	Well, for the most part, this isn't really news. As I was taught -- in Catholic school, mind you -- there is Truth (Capital T) and there is truth (small t). Big T Truth is statements of faith, which (even so) are not necessarily historically true events. Small t truth is things like historal accuracy, scientific accuracy, literal facts. The Catholic church position (as I learned in school) was that the Bible contains Big T Truths -- faith statements about the covenant between God and Israel, Jesus as Messiah, the resurrection, etc. The Bible may contain some small t truths, but that is not the primary purpose or function of it. It was, in fact, in Catholic school that I first learned of things such as the two conflicting creation stories in Genesis, the two HUGELY conflicting "infancy narratives" (stories of the birth of Jesus) in Matthew and Luke, and complete lack of birth stories in the other two gospels (Mark and John). As a faith story, told to a specific audience, with knowledge of the background of that audience, much of the Bible is fascinating, and great literature -- particularly those infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke (hey, how did you figure Christmas got to be such a big deal?) But for anyone to try to use it -- as earlier Catholics did, and fundies still do -- as a book of science is foolish. Even to use it as a book of history is weak at best.
	__________________ 90% of what I say is meant to be funny, and the other half doesn't mean anything at all. When I grow up, I want to be just like me.

5th October 2005, 12:48 PM	#7
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,112	Originally Posted by Darat I don’t think at anytime throughout its very long history has the Bible been viewed by the Catholic Church as the one and only literal truth. (I stand to be corrected if it has held such a view.) I was raised Catholic, and that's the exact impression I got. There were some good bits in the Bible, but nobody needs to go overboard and search Leviticus or one of the weirder books for something meaningful. It was something of a surprise when I wound up in a very Baptist college, and class discussions would stop when I mentioned some very Christian belief of Aquinas or St Augustine and was told "that's not in the Bible"...therefore it was automatically invalid and unworthy of discussion. It wasn't "really" Christianity if were outside the Bible. Which is probably news to Aquinas, Augustine, and all those synods and councils that decided what the Trinity was and who was and wasn't divine. Which of course led me to ask how many people who believed in angels believed they look like people with wings. All of them did, and none of them believed me when I said that that image of angels was merely an artistic convention, and not a description from the Bible. It frustrates me that people would attach so much importance to a single book, yet not trouble to read the whole damn thing!
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

5th October 2005, 05:41 AM	#3
Jorghnassen Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The realm of ideas Posts: 3,881	Actually, doesn't this go back to something like the second century? I can't remember which theologian stated it first (someone like ceo_esq probably knows), but according to the Catholic Church, there are lots of parts of the Bible you can't take at face value, such as the 7 days creation part of the Genesis...

5th October 2005, 06:17 AM	#5
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,578	Originally Posted by swstephe hope this isn't covered in another thread. i put the actual headline in the title rather than "can you believe this", or something like that. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...811332,00.html is this article for real? it starts out as if it is for all catholics worldwide, but only mentions catholics of great britain in the details. I can't see any new theology Quote: i know there have been some changes, but i'm not catholic. the implications seem big to me ... the catholic church supporting evolution Hardly new. The catholic church never really opposed evolution. It tended to learn it's lession after the whole helocentric thing. Quote: ... will creation scientists have to declare catholic church infidels? They already do. Considering the relgious background most of them come from thier church probably did a couple of centries ago.

6th October 2005, 08:15 AM	#8
Jorghnassen Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The realm of ideas Posts: 3,881	Yep, dates back to the second century, and the guy's name was Origen.

6th October 2005, 11:02 AM	#9
Anti_Hypeman Death Dealing Doom Machine Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,011	Catholic church no longer swears by the truth of the catholic church. Remember purgatory? What happened to all the priests that lived and died before the no sex rule? Did they go to hell or is the current doctrine wrong?

6th October 2005, 11:02 AM	#10
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey All of them did, and none of them believed me when I said that that image of angels was merely an artistic convention, and not a description from the Bible. It frustrates me that people would attach so much importance to a single book, yet not trouble to read the whole damn thing! The purpose of their belief is not to evaluate their own beliefs, but to dismiss the beliefs of others that they dislike. It's the basic double standard -- other people's beliefs are wrong because they're not in the Bible, but their own beliefs must be in the Bible because they're true.
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	__________________ Arguing with the irrational is like giving medicine to a dead man or preaching to the damned. "Dance with us, GIR! Dance with us into oblivion!" "Oddly, stating that one has no creed assures that one has no creed." -- Upchurch "I am the only one here using reason." -- Interesting Ian "You cannot respond to the arguments of TIMECUBE!" -- TimeCube guy

6th October 2005, 11:25 AM	#11
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Anti_Hypeman What happened to all the priests that lived and died before the no sex rule? Did they go to hell or is the current doctrine wrong? Neither. The Catholic Church distinguishes between "venial sin" and "mortal sin" -- a venial sin does not involve a complete loss of God's grace nor does it bar one from Heaven. (As opposed, of course, to a moral sin. A mortal sin results in complete loss of grace, and dying in a state of moral sin will result in your eternal separation from God in Hell.) There are traditionally three elements necessary for a mortal sin : Knowledge, Free Will, Grave Matter. (it's not mortal if you don't know it's a sin, it's not mortal if the sin is involuntary, and it needs to be about something important). Since the priests who lived, married, and died before the no sex rule were not taught about this particular rule, they would get a freebie pass on the "knowledge" part. And isn't Purgatory still part of Catholic doctrine? (I believe it was explicitly affirmed at Vatican II in Lumen gentium that souls that are not completely free of sin must still be "purged." ) I think the only thing that really changed was the idea that Purgatory had to be a separate place.

6th October 2005, 07:56 PM	#12
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Originally Posted by Anti_Hypeman Remember purgatory? What happened to all the priests that lived and died before the no sex rule? Did they go to hell or is the current doctrine wrong? The priestly celibacy requirement has never been a matter of Catholic doctrine. It's purely an administrative regulation.
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940

6th October 2005, 09:26 PM	#13
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,476	The Galileo thing was more about the man's politics than any RC doctrine of geocentrism. Galileo advocated the unification of Italy as a country. This opposed the Papal States of central Italy. The church never bothered about Copernicus, a politically correct priest in Poland. Yeah he was dead before published, but they didn't suppress his works when they had plenty of power to suppress stuff. Moral of the story: Don't be an outspoken Ghibelline in Italy. The Church can have you tortured. Modern moral of the story: Don't let anyone have that kind of authority.
	__________________ The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation. Last edited by Abdul Alhazred; 6th October 2005 at 09:29 PM.

6th October 2005, 11:16 PM	#14
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred Moral of the story: Don't be an outspoken Ghibelline in Italy. The Church can have you tortured. For the sake of accuracy, however, Galileo's story did not actually contain any episodes of torture. I find your avatar strongly reminiscent of Jean-Paul Belmondo, by the way.
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940

7th October 2005, 06:27 PM	#15
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,476	No they didn't torture him, but they threatened, which shut him up. For the source of my avatar, see this: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0094/0094_01.asp
	__________________ The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.

7th October 2005, 07:22 PM	#16
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,112	Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred For the source of my avatar, see this: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0094/0094_01.asp Do you know, for all this time, I've been thinking your avatar was Ming the Merciless in a funny mood. eta: Holy crap! Just read it. Chick seems to have an S&M electro fetish. And your avatar guy? He looks kinda...hot...in his freaky evil witch armor.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin. Last edited by TragicMonkey; 7th October 2005 at 07:26 PM.